well doesnt the FTC(or whatever its name is) guarentee insurance of this money up to 250K, so he lost 50K which sucks but not as bad as 300, and i would hunt down the theifs and do things that i shall not say on OCN.

Requiring banks to have more checks in place for online accounts is up to regulators, not the courts.

But surely it makes sense to implement the extra check from the bank's point of view? OK this time they were not liable, but I bet it still cost them some time and money to sort things out. And what about when they are liable? An extra step in security makes sense, and I can't think that it would cost all that much to implement it.

Yes it is up to a financial regulatory system (in most countries) to enforce checks, but I can't help but think that the banks themselves need to take the initiative here.

well doesnt the FTC(or whatever its name is) guarentee insurance of this money up to 250K, so he lost 50K which sucks but not as bad as 300, and i would hunt down the theifs and do things that i shall not say on OCN.

it doesn't cover this...
FDIC covers money when a bank fails. as in if your bank lends out too much money, and is unable to recover it... the federal government will give it to you, based on your account balance when the bank closed (or their version of bankruptcy)

It says they did it in smaller single transactions, presumably making a lot of them. The bank caught it and was able to reverse about half of them it sounds like.

I originally thought that was the case but it says this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wired Article

Patco Construction Company, a family-owned business in Sanford Maine, sued Ocean Bank, which is owned by Peopleâ€™s United Bank, after discovering in May 2009 that hackers were siphoning about $100,000 per day from its online bank account.

At that rate, the ACH transactions would have all appeared in the hackers account around the same time, even if it was done in dozens or hundreds of small transactions each day. So one day the hacker woke up and saw an available balance of $100,000 and the next, $200,000 and so on if it was all sent to the same account. The only thing I can figure is the following has to happen:

The hackers have some serious inside connections with bankers, law enforcement and government officials

and/or

They used dozens; if not thousands of accounts for the ACH transactions under stolen identities and then sent teams of theives out to hit ATM's to cash out.

Regardless, these are some true masterminds at work.

I personally think it's a two way street as far as responsibility goes; the bank should have noticed these large and irregular transactions and the account owners should have kept up on their account. I personally know where every single cent goes in my accounts and if this sort of thing happened to me my account would be frozen ASAP; not several days later.